Forum menu
THIS! ^^It's the responsibility of the passing vehicle to make a safe overtake. If they can't do that, they should stay where they are.
This is what people forget. Will 10,20,30 seconds really make a difference to your journey. No. If you're a tawt you may think it does though.
Plenty of ****s around. If you want to annoy one into doing something stupid then that's fine. Just don't pretend it's not in your control.
[i]Obviously expecting confrontation with the camera filming it all.[/i]
That is such [u]utter bollocks.[/u]
My words to the van driver - "Are you the f*in police?" not "sorry" that's for sure.
Ian - just read gary glitters posts.and others who want the cyclist to get out of the way and ride in the gutter where they are unsafe.
When people start coming over about to give it large just bin the bike and front up! Mouthy ****, if he's so bothered about being held up why then pullover to have a go?
People like that just want dropping!!
Anyhow we went past a load of roadies on Sunday and they were four abreast!!
Like others have said, it's no good being in the right if you are flattened by a truck (or a big man in a van!).
How exactly are they in MORE danger by riding two abreast and taking control of the lane? White Van Man clearly saw them and was forced to take appropriate action - though he clearly didn't like it.
Do you honestly think it would be safer to be riding single file at the kerb while a "truck" or "a big man in a van" squeezes past without leaving his lane??
Those cyclists were being selfish, that's the top and bottom of it.
Right - so they should be unselfish and put themselves in greater danger so motorists behind them don't have the frightful inconvenience of changing lanes?
Would you feel the same if they were just a slow car? Or a tractor?
GlitterGaryI have however spent years riding motorcycles, and bicycles on the road, so am fully aware of how to conduct myself on the road.
clearly not if you think the bikes should ride in the gutter to get out of the way.
This has always confused me about certain road riders. They think they are in a Pelaton or on a stage of the Tour and they are important.
I once took offence at a group of road riders in Surrey once which turned into an interesting confrontation.
For over 1/2mile a large group of road cyclings blocked the whole of our 'lane'- fine I could wait. Then a couple weaved out into the oncoming side of the road. Even on the straight that I was going to use to overtake (that offered enough forward visibility).
It felt like they were deliberating doing this so they could get a 'rise' out of a motorist. I got passed (safely) and after I was enough I passed I beeped the horn once out of annoyance. This was immediately (too quickly) met with fingers, coming on then ****er you name it. So I stopped. The verbal abuse was ridiculous and pathetic. They came across as almost rabid. Idiots. Interestingly I could see a few within the group didn't want to participate etc.
I can see why on a winding road you might swerve out to block someone trying a risky overtaking manevour that might end up with a swift move over and cyclists hurt but this wasn't one of these occasions.
Mountain bikers on the road are totally different. Maybe its a 'victim/chip' mindset that some cyclists have. Or maybe self-importance?
Plenty of **** around. If you want to annoy one into doing something stupid
Stupid people will do something stupid whatever you do. If you get annoyed waiting 30 seconds to pass a cyclist, then you should go get some Prozac.
I don't ride down the middle of my lane, as that would be selfish when riding alone, but nor do I cower in the gutter. It makes me cringe when I see people 1ft or less from the kerb. I'm normally in the inside wheeltrack or thereabouts, and doing a reasonable speed. Make yourself big and obvious, and be confident. It's rare I have any problems.
clearly not if you think the bikes should ride in the gutter to get out of the way.
No one has ever said this, you misguided old fool.
For this reason, I am out.
the only people to mention riding in the gutter are the people arguing against it. you're creating an argument out of nothing by your sheer inability to realise that you are not always right and that occasionally there is 'another way' of doing things.
Regarding all the stuff on this thread about cyclists being selfish and annoying motorists, I think you'd find that cyclists who are worried about annoying motorists and and get intimidated to the side of the road are generally the ones who end up dead.
I don't set out to rile anyone up, but I'll happily annoy the hell out of anyone if I'm in the right and it keeps me safe.
I'd never ride in the gutter - ever. If a car is in front I'll temper my speed to sit behind and/or go up and over (around) never under.
No one has ever said this, you misguided old fool.
Actually you did. Repeatedly.
GrahamS - MemberHow to be a better cyclist advises cyclists to stay nearer but not close to the kerb on long, even stretches, but where safe and appropriate to do so, to assert themselves (such as when approaching a side road), pushing out into the road and making themselves visible to drivers.
theflatboy: but that's exactly what they are doing!?
They are approaching a hazard (roundabout) so they are asserting control over their lane, in line with that advice.
"nearer to the kerb" on a "long, even stretch" does not mean two abreast, does it?
and the "side road" mention, i take to mean to avoid cars trying to fly past you and cut you up on left turns, not riding in the middle of a lane near a roundabout.
I'll happily annoy the hell out of anyone if I'm in the right and it keeps me safe
a risky game to play.
GrahamS- 6/10 for trolling. 0/10 for being able to read. X
GG - you want the cyclist to move over to let a car past without having to move out of the lane - that would put the cyclist in the gutter in an unsafe road position.
where would you be riding on that road?
the thing is, the only way those cyclists could ride to allow cars to overtake them without going into the overtaking lane is to ride in the gutter, so you are saying that they should ride in the gutter. single file, taking the correct high line would still force cars into the overtaking lane, so whats the difference between that and rding two abreast?
as for the argument that the car had to swerve to avoid them, nearly causing a crash. Maybe, just maybe the driver of that car should open his ****ing eyes?
cyclists perfectly in the right.
Me and my mates ride two abreast pretty much all the time, however if we're on a narrow country road and a car comes up behind we always fan out into single file, often we get a thank you wave off the drivers, sometimes we get the finger. nice people and tossers in all walks of live!
EDIT: I cycle on a road like that every day for my commute, as a rule of thumb I keep a line about 50 cms further out than the drain covers on the side of the road, so about a metre, maybe further out, cars have to pull into oncoming traffic to get past me. I very rarely, in fact I've never had anyabuse for doing that.
I can't stand these militant cyclists who go around annoying motorists deliberately under the cover of the highway code. If I came across those two I think i'd bite.
I think i'd overtake safely, gradually slow down to reduce the cyclists speed to an annoying level then speed up every time they go to overtake.
perfectly legal but annoying.
I can't believe people think the safest place to be is to the LEFT of this guy:
[img] 
[/img]
Really?
As for the road being wide enough to ride single file without being in the gutter. Take a look.
I'd say "not in the gutter" means your wheels where his left wheels are, along the edge of the S. If you rode there then I can't see how he'd get around you without going into the other lane unless he passed waaaay too close.
I'll happily annoy the hell out of anyone if I'm in the right and it keeps me safe
Dude. That is NOT safe. From experience the angriest motorists with cyclists tend to be slight/podgy short white men who don a 2ton suit of armour that gives them omni potency for once.
a risky game to play.
I do it precisely because in road safety terms it's less risky. Unless you mean the risk of some idiot confronting me in which case maybe so. I have had one or two 'encounters' but (perhaps due to me being over 6 foot with a P.O.W. buzzcut) nobody's ever got out their car. I'd still rather that than go unseen, or under someone's wheels.
The van driver would have been thinking that they were being smart asses about their rights and thought they were taking the piss a bit considering the location/build up of traffic.
To be honest, if he calmed down just a tad i reckon he would admit to feeling a bit worried for the cyclists. I dont think he was raging,he just wanted to give them his take on it all. He obviously saw them as being inconsiderate. I do too,to an extent. Kind of like driving down the motorway in the right hand lane,bang on the speed limit with the idea of "well im going the speed limit and im gradually passing the car to my left thats still 300 yards ahead of me but its definitely going slower than me so ill stay in this lane because im in the right"
Arse-in around with being in the right doesnt always add up to be a good or safe way to be.
It reminds me of the group of around a dozen roadies cycling over the Kessock bridge in the left lane when it was still busy after the morning rush hour. In their rights but.. ffs.. are they trying to get fitter to live a longer healthier life or are they quite content at the thought of being killed instantly? Some folk would be better off drinking every night with a couple of brisk walks over the weekend. Probably live longer.
graham - far too close to the kerb - I would be riding at least on the L of slow on that road.
and the "side road" mention, i take to mean to avoid cars trying to fly past you and cut you up on left turns, not riding in the middle of a lane near a roundabout.
I take it to mean approaching any hazard where it is safer to take the primary and that is certainly what Cyclecraft / Bikability teaches.
graham - far too close to the kerb - I would be riding at least on the L of slow on that road.
Agreed TJ, but I'm guessing that is what some people consider to be "not in the gutter".
I'm in the nay camp, the main reason why people ride two abreast is to chat, not a safe thing to do in my book. And stay well away from white vans.
i'd ride on the O or maybe even the S, one can't be too careful, i mean look at the over hanging trees near the very deep gutter on the left. a squirrel could fall onto my unhelmeted self-riteous head and knock some sense into me. that would never do.
GrahamS - Memberand the "side road" mention, i take to mean to avoid cars trying to fly past you and cut you up on left turns, not riding in the middle of a lane near a roundabout.
I take it to mean approaching any hazard where it is safer to take the primary and that is certainly what Cyclecraft / Bikability teaches.
so the fact you can't actually see the roundabout you're talking about for the majority of the clip also confirms you're in the wrong, then. as it's quite obviously a "long, even stretch". 😕 😆
so flat boy - what road position would you take? look at the pic Graham posted above.
the pic Graham posted is following the angry swerve the van driver made.
he wouldn't have made the angry swerve, if [s]you[/s] those idiots had just ridden single file an arms length from the kerb.
This is not a particularly ideal road to cycle along. If they ride two abreast then they are seen as being stubborn cyclists and getting in people's way but if they ride single file, they either ride so close to the kerb that cars can squeeze past, or they ride a bit further out and people have to move into the outside lane anyway.
There's a road like this in Peterborough, here (hope this works:
and you get quite a lot of cyclists. What tends to happen is they either ride along at the very edge of the road & people squeeze past very close, or they ride a bit further out (but still by no means in the middle of the lane) and car drivers have to go round them. Problem is, there will invariably be cars in the outside lane, which then winds the overtaker up, as they have to wait to pull out.
I wouldn't like to cycle along the road in that video, but if I did I'd probably be positioned far enough out that people had to go around me, rather than squeeze past.
I would ride just to the left of the S on a cycle. Motorbike would mostly be in the middle depending on whats up ahead/crests of hills etc. I can see some of the dangers riding to the left but i just feel safer not having to worry about someone not looking ahead,tuning the radio,texting a friend.. and ploughing right into me (if i was bang on in the middle)
Maybe i am hoping for the best when i say that its more likely that someone texting might manage to dodge me a little easier at the last moment if i ride to the left of the S. :o/
Recently did a TCL/MBL course where we were asked/required to cycle on the road in a tight box formation, all 8 of us. This was pretty unsettling and whilst we all took the footprint of a car and forced "proper overtakes", the abuse and response this provoked was interesting. Riding in this "correct" manner seemed to provoke rather than help and it was pretty uncomfortable.
The logic is sound though, one overtake to pass a box of 8 people or diving in and out to get past a line of 8 over a greater distance....
Still not sure about it all though I have to say.
I think if you want to use the road you have an obligation to at least try and match traffic speed.
I'll pass that nugget on to the next tractor driver I see. Or hearse.
just bin the bike and front up!
You know, I wondered idly what I'd do in their situation. If some huge bloke tried to stop me, who's just jumped out of a van after seeing me on a nice shiny bike, there is [i]no way on god's green earth[/i] I'd have stopped to talk to him. No way.
left of the S - so right in the gutter then allowing you to be squeezed into the kerb as vehicles try to squeeze past you? Very dangerous riding position.
If I was riding that road on my own I'd be in the "L" position which GrahamS/TJ refer to. If I was "with company" I'd probably be riding two abreast, and in my opinion that is the safer option (more visible, shorter over take for following traffic, and forces traffic to make a "safe" overtake not a squeeze through). Not only were they technically in the right, I think they were actually doing the sensible thing.
However if I ever feel the need to film my riding for "evidence" then I'll probably stop riding on the road! That said, rather than put it on Youtube I might have been inclined to let the local road policing unit decide who actually committed an offence? The people riding legally or the driver behind an aggressive overtake who then walks into the road to stop and shout at two cyclists... ...his number plate is clearly visible.
*Jeremy sits back and wonders why the rear of his tandem is always empty*
There is no reason to hold up traffic and cause drivers to be frustrated, to do so is just plain shitty!
Yes they may have the law on thier sides but the law as it stands is a whimsical farce that only slaves to idiocy would adhere too!
If a lot of cyclists acted in this way our roads could very quickly become grid locked!
To cause others distress or act in a way that is detrimental to thier quality of lives is wrong, anyone that is able to justify blatant manipulations of the law in certain circumstances, whereby for no good reason others lose moments of thier lives, is an asshole plain and simple.
Just out of curiosity and for future reference, If I wanted to pull in front of these cyclists at a safe distance and then slow down in front of them, for example to test out my brakes functionality, would that be legal?
Riding two abreast is legal. According to The Highway Code, [b]cyclists should "never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file where the road narrows or on the approach to a bend".[/b]
Source http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/article/technique-road-positioning-197/
so the fact you can't actually see the roundabout you're talking about for the majority of the clip also confirms you're in the wrong,
There are red triangle warning signs on both sides of the road, a big roundabout directional sign plus multiple SLOWs written on the roads with accompanying speed lines.
You might not be able to "actually see the roundabout" in the clip, but if you don't know it is coming up then you shouldn't be on the road (on a bike OR in a car).
he wouldn't have made the angry swerve, if you those idiots had just ridden single file an arms length from the kerb.
some people don't get it do they. If they had been riding single file in a good safe road position the van would still have had to move into the overtaking lane in exactly the same manner.
I'm in the nay camp, the main reason why people ride two abreast is to chat, not a safe thing to do in my book.
Why isn't chatting a safe thing to do? Don't people in cars get to sit two abreast chatting?
some people don't get it do they. If they had been riding single file in a good safe road position the van would not have had to move into the overtaking lane in the same manner.
Why isn't chatting a safe thing to do? Don't people in cars get to sit two abreast chatting?
awesome post. there are so many things that are good about it, it's difficult to know where to begin the praise.
According to The Highway Code, cyclists should "never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file where the road narrows or on the approach to a bend".
Occasionally the HC is wrong - I know the CTC tried to get that advice removed in the most recent update. For reasons being argued above (just because TJ is arguing doesn't mean he's wrong), singling out in those situations just encourages drivers to overtake unsafely. Just to use the example of one which isn't the case for the video being discussed, try actually thinking about that advice - what is the benefit to anybody of singling out before a bend?